-/
dp
Hmm, the only other film I’ve seen by Menkes is Queen of Diamonds, which was alright. I mean, I saw what she was trying to do with it, but yeah, it just didn’t gel as well as it could’ve (though there is some wonderful imagery whichwas rather Tarkovsky-like). So, going on that, I’d be interested in seeing/finding this film – I would literally have no expectations one way or the other going in.
OK, I saw this yesterday (although I had to watch break up the viewing into several segments). I had a hard time getting a handle on the film—i.e., I don’t have a good idea about what it’s about—and my sense of what of it’s about would disappoint me, if I’m correct. This is a non-narrative, visually oriented film and I can enjoy films like this even when I don’t really “get it.” Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case with this film. (And saying this gives me no pleasure.)
Normally I would take time to think about and process the film, but I’m not sure I’m going to be able to do that with this film, so maybe others can share their thoughts.
I’m especially interested in hearing what the film is about.
Lulu, the main character, has some problems—a monotonous job, an unfulfilling relationship, a troubled sister and an annoying mother. There seem to be dream sequences or more surreal moments that occur between the depictions of the problems above. (I’m interested in hearing any interpretations of some of these moments—the snake in the hallway; the woman on the white horse; the bridge over the river; floating and then exploding, etc.)
In a way, the film seems like a woman with typical problems—with these more poetic visual moments commenting(?) on them.
Other questions:
What is the significance of the title?
What do people make of the relatively long scenes of repetitive (boring behavior)—the scenes at the roulette table, the sex scene, Lulu buffing her nails, etc.?
This is probably the most abstruse of Menkes’s films. It’s certainly the highest budget film she had made up to that time. I’m not sure if it’s her best though. The Bloody Child may claim that honor in my book. Whatever one thinks of this film though, I don’t think they can claim that she lacks artistic integrity or a fierce sense of personal vision of what cinema should be about.
The way I interpret the film is that the whole thing could be inner psychological projections that occur inside the female protagonist’s mind during a sexual encounter. It could also simply be a dream. Anyhow, I don’t think that the film has to be explicated on every level for a viewer to enjoy it. It is a work of abstractions—the word “phantom” in the title already refers to the dreamlike and ephemeral and intangible and surreal nature of the film. A work of abstractions lends itself to different interpretations and evokes varying emotional reactions in different viewers.
I’ll try to see The Bloody Child. Thanks.
black lotus
A surreal psychodrama, Phantom Love is a striking evocation of female dreamscape in which violence and trauma are steadily percolating, just beneath the surface. The lead character is Lulu, played by Marina Shoif: a very beautiful, but angry and isolated woman, who lives alone, and works in a casino in Koreatown, Los Angeles. Lulu’s relationship with her much younger lover is charged but emotionally disconnected and Lulu’s younger sister, Nitzan (Juliette Marquis), is in the midst of a psychotic breakdown, caused in part by prescription medication. Lulu feels emotionally invaded by her mother, who wants to come to town and stay with her in order to try and help the younger sister-but this feels like a further intense invasion, and Lulu refuses. Phantom Love positions an alienated woman against a harsh, inhospitable landscape-this time, within a family. Structured like Chinese boxes, with each scene opening onto another, Phantom Love is a powerful exploration of one woman’s descent into Self.
the floating woman alá tarkovsky zerkalo at the end of the trailer is a huge CGI dissapointment, other than that the film looks promising, anyone seen it?